“High court may decide on state’s bid for revenue”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama administration Monday to weigh in on whether California can require Indian tribes to share hundreds of millions of dollars in gambling revenue with the state when they expand their casinos.”
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the case in April 2010.
The San Diego Union-Tribune covered the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in an article headlined “Court rules for tribes on profit sharing; Appellate decision big blow to governor.”
“Atheist Ads on Buses Rattle Fort Worth”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“Death sentences plunge in Texas; Foes cite new law, DNA testing; backers blame judges, delays in executions”: The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.
And in other death penalty-related news, The New York Times reports today that “Execution 150 Years Ago Spurs Calls for Pardon.”
“Congress and the Court”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.
“Brother-Lee love! Lefty ace picks Philly; Cliff-hanger: Yanks, Texas turned down.” Todd Zolecki of MLB.com has this report.
“Costco case ends in tie, with Kagan not hearing it”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
“Former Solicitor General of Texas James C. Ho Rejoins Gibson Dunn’s Dallas Office”: The law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP issued this news release today.
“Shell Rejected by High Court on $54 Million Award in Oklahoma Lease Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Court Chooses Guardians for Orphaned Arguments”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“U.S. Supreme Court Divides in Costco Gray Market Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court Rules Against ‘First-Sale’ Copyright Doctrine.”
“Inmate wins long-shot appeal to U.S. Supreme Court”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.
“Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal judge declared the Obama administration’s health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia’s attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The New York Times has a news update headlined “Health Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional.”
The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Key provision of health-care overhaul ruled unconstitutional.”
The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “U.S. judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law.”
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has a news update headlined “Judge rules for Va. on health-care case.”
Reuters reports that “Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law.”
Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Health care mandate nullified.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at this link. I have also posted a back-up copy of the ruling at this link.
C-SPAN conducts Justice Elena Kagan’s first TV interview since joining the U.S. Supreme Court: C-SPAN plans to air the 48-minute interview in its entirety on Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern time and on Monday, December 20, 2010 at 12:30 a.m. eastern time.
C-SPAN has already posted some excerpts from the interview at YouTube: “Justice Kagan on Using a Kindle to Read Briefs“; “Justice Kagan on Chief Justice Roberts“; and “Justice Kagan on Transition to the Supreme Court.”
In early news coverage of C-SPAN’s interview, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Kagan says ‘steep learning curve’ on Supreme Court.”
Access online today’s Order List and opinion in an argued case of the U.S. Supreme Court: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today did not grant review in any new cases, but the Court did call for the views of the Solicitor General’s Office on two cases.
Today’s “opinion” in an argued case consisted of a per curiam decision affirming by an equally divided Court in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., No. 08-1423. You can access the oral argument via this link. It is interesting to note that it took the Court a bit longer than usual to decide it was equally divided in this case, which was argued on November 8, 2010. Often an order affirming by an equally divided Court will issue on the first opportunity for delivering an opinion after the initial post-argument conferencing of the case.
And Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Allen v. Lawhorn, No. 10-24.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court tie vote sustains ruling against Costco“; “High court rejects appeal seeking bigger US House“; “Court rejects Ala. appeal in murder-for-hire case“; “Court won’t get involved in NY lawyer ad fight“; and “High court won’t block Columbia expansion plan.”
Finally, at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Copyright defense restricted.”
“Trial-site question surrounds Guantanamo detainees”: Jerry Markon has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Judge Ken Starr to Discuss Role of Solicitor General at Lecture Dec. 14”: Baylor University has issued this news release.
“Justice Stevens and the Death Penalty”: Yesterday’s edition of The New York Times contained this editorial.
“Size matters, lawsuit says of U.S. House”: This article will appear Monday in USA Today.
“History of blacks, women on high court a short one”: Frank Green has this article about the Supreme Court of Virginia in today’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Next chief justice finds strength in her rural roots.”
In yesterday’s edition of The Denver Post, Felisa Cardona had an article headlined “Colorado Supreme Court milestone a family affair.”
And in news from Ohio, The Toledo Blade reported yesterday that “Gov. Strickland picks former running mate as high court justice,” while The Columbus Dispatch reported that “McGee Brown appointed to Ohio Supreme Court.”
“Former judge Lokuta waits for decision on return to bench”: This article appears today in The Citizens Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: WikiLeaks and the Espionage Act.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.
“Fumo fights federal bid for longer sentence”: Craig R. McCoy and Nathan Gorenstein have this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
And yesterday’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News contained an article headlined “Fumo: Retry me, or uphold sentence” that begins, “Attorneys for disgraced former state Sen. Vince Fumo have requested a new trial, or failing that, that his prison sentence be affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.”
You can access at this link the brief that Fumo’s attorneys filed on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
“Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns.” FoxNews.com has this report.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer appeared on today’s broadcast of Fox News Sunday. You can view the video of his appearance by clicking here.
“Bush v. Gore, 10 years later”: Columnist George F. Will had this op-ed today in The Washington Post.
And Brad Knickerbocker of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Ten years after Bush v. Gore, the fight goes on; Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 500,000; But it was the contentious recount in Florida — halted by the Supreme Court — that gave it to Bush; What that meant still is being argued.”
“Lawsuit filed over justice selection”: This article appeared yesterday in The Des Moines Register, along with an article headlined “Lawyer, all 4 plaintiffs have GOP backgrounds.”
“Supreme Court to decide generic drug labeling issue”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Generic-Drug Makers Get Hearing at U.S. High Court.”
“Govt won’t contest ruling in steroids probe”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The government will not contest an appeals court ruling that investigators illegally seized a list of baseball players who allegedly tested positive for steroids, the Justice Department said Friday. That decision keeps intact a legal victory for scores of ballplayers snared in the doping investigation.”
“N.J. Supreme Court justice, Senate president feud over constitutionality of temporary judge”: Today’s edition of The Newark Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “The simmering controversy over Gov. Chris Christie’s sacking of Supreme Court Justice John Wallace and the state Senate’s refusal to approve a new justice erupted into public view yesterday with a raucous feud involving all three branches of New Jersey government.”
The New York Times reports today that “Appointment Fight Divides Judges.”
The Wall Street Journal contains an article headlined “Justice Stymies New Jersey High Court” that begins, “A mini-revolt broke out on the New Jersey Supreme Court Friday when an associate justice said he would abstain from all future decisions while a temporary justice is serving, leading top Democrats to call for the associate justice’s resignation.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
And The Associated Press reports that “N.J. high court at odds over fill-in; A Supreme Court justice refuses to hear cases while an interim judge is on the bench.”
Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto abstained from ruling on the two decisions that the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued yesterday. You can access those two decisions, and Justice Rivera-Soto’s opinions abstaining therefrom, here and here.
“Court to Weigh Private Interests’ Intervention in NEPA Disputes”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court will consider next week whether to abandon a legal rule that makes it difficult for private interests to intervene in environmental disputes in the Western states.”
“Harry Reid, Republicans in talks on judicial nominees”: Politico.com has a report that begins, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is negotiating a deal with Republican leaders to confirm a long list of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominations that have idled on the Senate calendar for months, sources say.”
“Appeals court reverses itself over Armenian suit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today on panel rehearing.
That three-judge panel’s original ruling from August 2009, reaching the opposite result by a 2-1 vote, can be accessed here.
Supplemental brief filed in Third Circuit en banc case challenging certification of a nationwide, state-law, indirect-purchaser antitrust class action seeking to recover monopoly overcharge damages: This afternoon, I filed this supplemental brief for appellant in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in response to an order that the en banc court issued last month. Additional background on the case can be accessed here and here.
“Obama signs law banning ‘crush videos’ depicting animal cruelty”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.
And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “President Signs Bill Banning Animal Crush Videos.”
Access online this evening’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: You can access the Order List at this link. The Court granted review in three cases.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court to decide lawsuit over generic drug labels.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston offers this coverage.
Eleven-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel unanimously decides not to decide what general standard governs whether to apply the so-called “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment laws: The institution of rehearing en banc is usually reserved for deciding issues of great importance, but today the Ninth Circuit shows that the procedure can also be used to avoid deciding issues of great importance. You can access today’s Ninth Circuit ruling at this link.
